Age-ing study: A prospective evaluation of geriatric, patient-reported and frailty assessments to predict outcomes in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia

C Catherine Lai (Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA) T Thomas Greenwood (1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) E E. Paul Wileyto (1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) N Nisha Singh A Ashlena Livingston (1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) A Amanda Lopez (1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) S Selina Luger (14University of Pennsylvania/ Abrahmson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States) A Alexander Perl (7University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) X Ximena Jordan Bruno (1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) E Elizabeth Hexner (Cell Therapy and Transplant Program, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) S Shannon McCurdy (4Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States) S Saar Gill (University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) G Gary Okano (6Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States) A Ali McBride (6Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States) C Carmelo Alonso (2Bristol Myers Squibb, Lawrence Township, United States) K Keith Pratz (12Johns Hopkins University/ Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, United States)

Abstract

Abstract Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) primarily affects older adults. Despite the survival benefit of intensive treatment, therapy decisions remain complex due to heterogeneity in physical function. Age alone does not adequately determine treatment tolerance or recovery potential. Tools including geriatric assessments (GAs), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and frailty indices can predict outcomes but are underused in AML care. The AGE-ING (Assessment of Geriatric Evaluations Impact on New AML Guidance) study (NCT05909501) evaluated the utility of streamlined GA, PRO, and frailty tools to predict survival, toxicity, and functional outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with AML undergoing treatment. Interim results are presented here. Methods: This single-center, prospective observational study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania included patients newly diagnosed with AML aged ≥50, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 0–2 receiving intensive (daunorubicin/cytarabine) or non-intensive therapy (HMA/venetoclax). The objective was to evaluate whether pre-treatment GA and frailty assessments could predict overall survival (OS) at 30, 60 days, and 1 year (y) in these patients. Baseline GAs included GDS-15, Mini-Cog, PROs (physical function, depression, fatigue, anxiety, cognition), and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB: balance, 4-meter [4m] walk, chair stand), repeated at days 14 and 30 after treatment. Frailty was assessed using the Deficit Accumulation Frailty Index (DAFI), based on pretreatment demographic, GA, and laboratory data and categorized as robust (<0.2), prefrail (0.2–0.35), or frail (>0.35). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan–Meier (KM) models evaluated associations between baseline age, frailty, physical function, and OS, adjusted for treatment intensity. Results: As of June 2025, 47 of 100 patients were enrolled (21 [44.7%] in the intensive; 26 [55.3%] in the non-intensive treatment groups). Median age was 66 years (range 50–87); 39.6% aged ≥70. ECOG PS=0 in 42.9% (intensive) and 19.2% (non-intensive) treatment groups. European Leukemia Network 2022 risk classification in the intensive group was favorable/intermediate/adverse in 28.6%/42.8%/28.6% respectively, vs 15.4%/26.9%/57.7% in the non-intensive group. Overall patient frailty levels were classified as robust (68.1%), prefrail (27.7%) and frail (4.3%). At 1 month follow-up, SPPB scores declined for balance (mean score -0.6 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.1 to -0.1], p=0.027), improved for 4m walk (mean score +0.4 [95% CI 0.0 to 0.8], p=0.036), and remained stable for chair stand (mean score ±0.0 [95% CI -0.4 to 0.4], p=0.998). PROs worsened significantly by 14 days in physical function (mean score -4.5 [95% CI -7.0 to -2.0], p<0.001), partially recovering at 1 month (mean score - 0.9 [95% CI -3.5 to 1.7], p=0.502). Fatigue (mean score -6.4 [95% CI -10.5 to -2.4], p=0.002), depression (mean score -5.4 [95% CI -7.7 to -3.0], p<0.001), and anxiety (mean score -6.6 [95% CI -9.4 to -3.8], p<0.001) worsened at 1 month. Mini-Cog scores improved at 1 month (mean score +0.6 [95% CI 0.1–1.0], p=0.009). At 30-days and 60-days, 1 (2.1%) and 2 patients (4.3%) respectively, had died, resulting in an overall incidence of 2.1 deaths per 100 person-months and hazard rate of death of 0.021 over the first 60 days. Interim KM estimates suggest patients ≥75 years old had a poorer OS at 1y compared with those <75 (hazard ratio [HR] 6.0, [95% CI 1.2 to 29.7], p=0.029). DAFI-defined frailty scores showed a trend toward inferior 1y OS (HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 5.7], p=0.063). Multivariate analysis showed no impact of frailty and treatment intensity on 1y OS. Estimated OS rates at 1y were 75.9% for robust patients receiving non-intensive treatment while prefrail/frail patients receiving non-intensive treatment were 56.6%. Numbers are too small for subgroup analysis and will be done with the final analysis. Conclusions: AGE-ING is the first study to assess serial measurements of GA, PROs, and frailty in patients with newly diagnosed AML in the real-world setting. Interim analysis shows patients ≥75 years and pre-frail/frail patients irrespective of age have worse OS. Final analysis is needed to evaluate differences based on treatment intensity, frailty scores, and change in measurements over time.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 2843-2843
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (16)

C

Catherine Lai

Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA

T

Thomas Greenwood

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

E

E. Paul Wileyto

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

N

Nisha Singh

A

Ashlena Livingston

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

A

Amanda Lopez

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

S

Selina Luger

14University of Pennsylvania/ Abrahmson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, United States

A

Alexander Perl

7University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

X

Ximena Jordan Bruno

1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

E

Elizabeth Hexner

Cell Therapy and Transplant Program, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

S

Shannon McCurdy

4Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States

S

Saar Gill

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

G

Gary Okano

6Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States

A

Ali McBride

6Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States

C

Carmelo Alonso

2Bristol Myers Squibb, Lawrence Township, United States

K

Keith Pratz

12Johns Hopkins University/ Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, United States